Winter Olympics

In response to the points you mentioned.

Elise Christie satisfied the criteria of both (1) and (2)

Are you saying she failed on (3)?

If anyone failed on (3) it was the BBC and the media putting a ridiculous amount of pressure on her.
Lizzie Yarnold had had enough of that and went home before the closing ceremony.

Elise Christie still has potential. Why are you singling her out amongst our other "failures" at the Winter Olympics. We have persevered with some athletes far too long.


As an example of lack of potential, why not "single out" twenty three year-old Jazamine Sawyers, who's done nothing of note for over three years. She came last in the long jump in the Glasgow indoor Athletics Grand Prix yesterday.


As for (4) No one is going to take a chance on "potential," you have to achieve something to be considered.

 

The Elise Christie thing is similar to Mark Cavendish. On paper he was one of the most accomplished outdoor cyclist around. In 2008 & 2012 he failed to medal. In 2016 he was entered for the indoor omnium, a multi-discipline event. He slipped up on one of the rides and ended up with a silver medal. He didn’t even pretend to be happy. He wanted a gold medal and nothing else was good enough. It was very unpleasant to witness. In the end you give up routing for these people.

Lottery funding is an interesting subject. Teams that under perform (according to who?) have their lottery money reduced or withdrawn altogether. The cycling team is of course very successful and as such is given a huge (almost obscene) amount of lottery money.

Would or would it not be better to help improve the fortunes of the less popular sports?

A similar thing happened in tennis a few years ago. There were a few British players who were being funded by the LTA. By the time they had reached there mid 20s it was obvious that they weren’t ever going to win anything. The decision was made therefore to cut the funding and look for some promising youngsters to help.

G.

 

I remember many, many moons ago seeing Fiona May wining a national school long jump competition. Why this particular competition was on the TV I have no idea. Having competed for GB as a youngster, she married an Italian and competed for Italy at future tournaments. She had a very successful career. It would be good if the the powers that be worked harder to support these people. Maybe Then they wouldn’t need to go looking elsewhere.

G.

 

Sorry @Doghouse Riley, that is pretty much what the Lottery is about, potential. As an example my daughter received funding at the ripe old age of 13. The youngest anybody from Britain competed at the Olympics in her sport was about 25! There was, maybe still are various tiers of funding including 1 called potential!

That may seem brutal but that's life. Mid 20s in tennis terms is getting on a bit and if you haven't made it by then you are very unlikely to. Getting funding is a double edged sword especially when the recipients are very young as the pressure is on to produce results. I don't think it did Laura Robson any favours by being thrust into the limelight so young. Yes she has had injuries but I think it is more the heavy weight of expectations which has damaged her potential. There were very good reasons why Andy Murray "disappeared" to Spain to further his young career. From what I was told the LTA did a right job on his brother who is, physically, head and shoulders superior to Andy.

 

You can only measure potential by someone achieving something at whatever level you want to make a judgement. Are you saying young people can get lottery funding because somebody says, "I think they could be very good?"

 

Yes, if the person who says it knows what they are talking about and is seen as an expert in their field. Remember a large % of funding goes towards coaching so it is in many coaches interests to promote their prodigies.

 

Unfortunately, we then can be in an area of vested interests.